User talk:Pseudo-Richard/RFA questions

Responses to the standard questions

Sysop chores

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list. A: a. I might use the "rollback" feature to revert vandalism (although I'm not sure how this feature differs from the "admin-like rollback" feature that I currently use) b. I would block vandals as requested on WP:AIV c. I would block editors who violate Wikipedia policies such as WP:3RR and WP:CIV

However, I am a strong believer in making sure that users know what the policies and guidelines are and admonishing users to follow them before using block as a last resort to stop serial vandalism, edit warring and gross incivility.

d. I would protect or semi-protect pages as requested on WP:AIV or WP:ANI

However, I am a strong believer that protection and semi-protection are intended to address transient vandalism problems and that, as a general rule, most pages should not be protected or semi-protected except during "vandalism torrents" or edit wars where the disputants ignore repeated requests to stop. Even then, blocks may be preferable to page protection depending on the specifics of the situation.

e. I would close debates on WP:AFD (I would probably not close any other of the *FD debates) f. I would unblock users who appear to be blocked as "collateral damage" from autoblocking g. I pledge not to undo the actions of another admin without first making an effort to contact that admin. If the original admin is unreachable, I will consult another admin. h. I further pledge not to use blocking or protection in situations where I am a disputant. I pledge to ask another admin to review the situation and act according to their judgment.

I really shouldn't have to say (g) and (h) but, if everybody followed these rules, ArbCom's workload would be a lot smaller.

Best contributions to Wikipedia

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why? A: The articles I'm most proud of are Aztec, Adaptation to global warming and Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Dealing with conflicts and stress

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Anti-Catholicism

Nativism

History of the United States

Featured articles, featured lists or featured portals

6. Could you point me towards either, 1. a Featured article you have written or collaborated on, 2. A featured list you have compiled. 3. A featured portal you have have helped gain featured status? Thanks.

No, sorry. Moreover, I do not agree that this is a necessary criterion for being a good admin. The Wikipedia project takes all types and I'm more of a hack editor than a top-quality writer. I work primarily off the stuff that "everyone knows" and work towards organizing the material in existing articles. Doing just that, I have made what I consider significant contributions to a number of articles as documented in my answer to Question 2 above. Getting an article, list or portal to featured status is an accomplishment. But, so too, is getting to the point where it is no longer an embarassment to Wikipedia. That's the area that I work in. --Richard 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Purpose and function of policy

7. What is the purpose and function of policy? How should consensus for new proposed policies and for alterations of existing policies be determined?

A: In small communities, it's relatively easy to co-ordinate things. Wikipedia is not a small community. In short, there have to be rules and guidelines which stipulate the way things should be done else things will fall apart in a huge mess of conflicting opinions. That's a very general answer, obviously different policies exist for wildly different reasons (WP:V is to ensure accuracy, WP:FUC because it's the law, etc).

As for determining consensus for proposed policies, there is no model of consensus that can be applied successfully to every situation. Consensus has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which makes a theoretical “How should consensus be determined?” very difficult to answer. Essentially, the solution would have to address everyone’s concerns as best it can. Sam Korn hits the nail on the head when he points out that consensus is not something that everyone supports, rather it's something everyone can live with.

Admin tasks

1. You indicate you are willing to do a variety of things. Have you got any experience in a variety of tasks, like tagging CSD, closing AfD's (per the non-admin procedure) and AIV?

A:Yes, I have tagged one or two articles for speedy deletion. Never closed an AfD but if I was to gain adminship, I would take more interest in these areas. Never been to WP:AIV before, seems admin specific. As an admin, I would take more interest in these activities, because admin must do these. However, I feel that {{unblock}} is more interesting and I would be more interested in helping in this kind of task, such as replying and reviewing.

I would try to make myself useful in all aspects of Wikipedia maintenance. A few particular things that I would like to help out on include admin intervention (something that would come quite useful with my vandal-fighting tools), speedy deletion, AfD closings, and trying to reduce the backlogs (One day we will conquer these massive beasts!). I also intend to participate in things that I wasn't really active in before, such as dealing with requests for page protection, personal attack intervention noticeboard, and dealing with image deletion (something I wasn't very observant about in my early days of Wikipedia, but I have gradually learned how to deal with it now and I think I can definitely help out here).Thus, though I have been in disputes, I've never really had a reason to report anyone or anything to WP:AN.

Nature of Adminship

2. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

A:In theory technical, in pratice political. So political.

Sense of humor

3. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?

A: Very. We don't want Robots. I have humour!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing vs. adminship

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

4. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?

A. My perecnt of mainspace editing will go down, but the raw number of edits will remain constant or go up.

5. How would you balance your contribution as an admin and as an editor?

A. Well if I was admin I would see myself as Wikipedian first, admin second. So I would probably go some thing like 60/40 or 70/30 to edits over admin jobs.

IAR/SNOW

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: Ignoring all rules is policy I have come across several times before. While it is offical, I believe this should be last resort rather than one taken on early in a dispute or other conflict. I believe this policy exists so the encyclopedia doesn't come to a halt if there are loopholes or overlapping policy.

WP:SNOW is an essay I am familure with. I think it means that while you should WP:IAR, you shouldn't ignoring the majority of users/editors of Wikipedia.

WP:SNOW is an offshoot of WP:IAR. I would tell a new user about WP:SNOW if they cite WP:IAR for something abit suspect. I will cite WP:IRA if a debate or similar is failing because of other policy but the majority are against.

Deletion

AFD nominations and discussions

5 Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and/or any AfDs which you have had a discussion in? (They should still be on your watchlist) Thanks.

A: Here's a few

7. Have you, in the past, contributed to many articles for deletion debates? If so, please provide some links to the more recent ones.

A:No, not really, unless they are of personal interest to me. Last one I can remember was probably about Brian Peppers, but, I don't generally visit those. However, if I was admin, I am sure AfD's would give me interest, as they are of course an area admins must be present in.

8. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?

A:I'd let it continue for a while longer as there is evidence. Before this, I would make sure the evidence is relevant. After perhaps one more day, if there is still a similar concensus, I will close.

Speedy deletion

9 What's the most critical step before doing a speedy delete?

A: There are times when other users nominate articles for speedy deletion as a joke or based on their lack of knowledge on the WP:CSD policy. I guess when I see an article tagged for speedy deletion with a tag such as {{db-bio}} or {{db-group}}, it would be best to check over and verify if such a tag is in fact necessary and accurate. I have seen articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion out of "bad faith", and I know this can potentially lead to mistaken deletions if it the situation is not handled in the correct manner. For articles that are tagged as {{db-reason}}, I would try to see if the reason the user who tagged the article is indeed correct. I would base my response to the speedy deletion request upon reviewing this. Also, from my experiences in AfD debates, I have seen that users get over-anxious and vote to speedy delete articles with neologisms, original research, fake information (as with hoaxes), spam or advertisements. I know that some people fail to read the WP:CSD guidelines and will subsequently fail to note that such reasons as stated above are not criteria for speedy deletion.

9a: All true as you said. Let me try to be more specific (please bear with me - this is my first attempt at standardizing this RFA pop quiz question). You're perusing CAT:ASD and find an article called "Fred Jones" which has the content, "Fred Jones is a scumbag bottomfeeder with no reason to live" and it has a db-attack tag on it. Per your answer above, your checking over the content takes 2 seconds - it is clearly of an attacking nature. What do you do? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A: First thing I would do is check the article's history. It's possible that someone unknowingly tagged it for speedy deletion after seeing the attack page, when in fact it might have just been mere vandalism. However, in the case of this "Fred Jones" who in fact is not notable and whose article is just an attack page, I would speedy delete it and warn the user. If the person is notable (which I would discern from independent research) and his/her article is just an attack page, with no history, then I would either blank or delete the article and then re-write it as per WP:APAGE.

10. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

A: Reinstate the article and put it up for AfD to achieve a better vote. Inform the admin of this decision. If the admin opposed, I would talk to him/her about there decision. Hopefully this would work.

11. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

A: Block them, there is precedence of them going against the majority. Also, if by anon you mean an IP, they can't create articles.

12. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?

A: If the article is larger than most stubs and appears to be in non encyclopedic format, I would delete, especially after checking a users previous contribs and find a history of this kind of editing. I would make sure it just wasn't a page which need to be wikified as well.

Thus, the criteria I would use is:1. Writen in non encylopedic tone. 2. User has history of corperate editing. 3. Was larger than stub. 4. Has several links to a company website. 5. POV.

Mediation

13. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A: Would support the other admins decision and comment on the RFAR. I would then attempt to create a dialog between both parties, attempting to understand both sides of the arguement. If one continues to ignore, I will talk to them on their talk page.

Dealing with abusive users

Personal attacks against another admin

6. If a users first edit was a personal attack on an admin's talk page and you spotted it on RC patrol, what would you do?

A: I would try to follow WP:NPA and we'd take it from there. My first act would be to add a note on the admin's talk page admonishing the user against personal attacks and asking the admin to keep cool and let someone else watch the Talk Page and handle the situation.

Also, if this is the user's first edit, I would consider the possibility of a sockpuppet and/or a previously banned user out to take revenge on whoever banned him. Even so, the key here is to keep the attacked admin from losing his cool which can be difficult considering the nature of some personal attacks.

Blocking of experienced editors

4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an experienced editor? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Ugh. This is a very difficult question. The fact that you ask it suggests that you think that admins should cut experienced editors some slack because of their contributions to the project. An alternate perspective would be that inexperienced editors should be cut more slack because they have not been around very long and may not know the written and unwritten rules

Punitive blocks

14. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: I assume by punitive you mean an inflicting punishment. I don't see how this is posible, unless we track a user down and write a letter to them. Seems weird.

New Answer: Sorry, but I thought by punitive it meant that we punish someone already under a block. WP:BLOCK states blocks for events other than vandalism should not be done, so No.

Sock puppets

15. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A: Is this before or after a check user? That changes the whole situation.

If before, I would request a check user, in order to confirm the sockpuppets. If there is a match, I would personally email the user if the had the feature, asking them if they want to vandalise Wikipedia or edit Wikipedia. If they so remorse, I will block the socks, and watch the user closely for the first weeks back.

Substantial abusers

8. How would you deal with a long term group trouble users, blocked temporarily on several occasion for 3RR/NPA, who manage to flame, "tag team" revert war, and add unsourced original research to pages just enough to avoid any instant indefinite blocks? Would you seek an RfC, RfAr, or AN/I as the first step?Voice-of-All 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A: In my experience, I tend to be more patient with these sort of users than some, continuing to attempt to discuss the issues. I don't see this as a good thing or a bad thing (except that it is good to have people with different approaches), but it does mean that I am less likely to be the one iniating RfCs, etc. I can't see RfAr being the first step. Other than that, it would depend on the specifics. RfC is the obvious thing to do when the users are engaging in discussion. Without discussion, I would suggest they probably do deserve an instant indefinite block, which I would want to confirm at AN/I

10. I've noticed that in your vandal fighting you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards either. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

A: You're right, I've almost entirely been working on anon test "vandalism"- and my article specialty- math, tends not to attract a lot of abuse. I did encounter a persistent vandal (or rather a group of them) before, and I deferred to an admin how to handle it [1]. If this nom succeeds, and I were to encounter serious abuse a week later, I would probably defer to a more experienced admin again. At the moment I don't primarily see myself as the kind of admin that always goes after persistent abuse though, since thus far I have neither the experience nor the desire to do so. I'd much prefer "gnoming" admin chores, like dealing with image backlog, test vandalism etc. I do believe that this is an issue that no admin can ignore when it comes up however, so I will act to counter persistent abuse when I find it- but conservatively and in deference to more senior admins, at least until I gain some experience.

That said, in all my time in WP I don't think I've ever been in a situation where quoting policy and being courteous and respectful did not solve a dispute. This might be because I've been lucky so far, but I believe that this is a more potent way to prevent conflict than a lot of people realize. It helps to be a bit civil to even the most unreasonable of POV pushers.

Blocking of a user by an admin who edited the article

11. Given the above, if an admin who edited the article blocked one of these users, could that ever be considered appropriate, or should only unrelated admins block? Would you consider that serious administrator abuse?

A: Of course it is ideal that an uninvolved admin should block. In the case described above, this is probably necessary. However, I would not be bothered by an admin who blocking on a clear violation of policy, or with the support of the community, no matter how involved they were.

of Wikipedia. I subscribe to this second perspective. I might give an inexperienced editor 2 or 3 warnings before actually blocking them. An experienced editor should only need 1 or 2 warnings because they ought to know better.

Well, that's the theory anyways. In practice, some admins have gotten into a lot of hot water for blocking longstanding contributors. The most notorious example that I can think of is User:Carnildo who got desysopped for doing something that seems perfectly logical (i.e. banning editors who insisted on keeping userboxes related to pedophilia).

I think the whole idea of admins blocking long-standing users is just a can of worms and the only rule that I can come up with is: Before you block such a user, consult another admin. Heck, put it up for discussion on WP:AN. It's the rare situation where Wikipedia is going to come crashing down in little pieces if an admin doesn't act immediately.

Look at it this way: If you weren't logged in and didn't see the infraction and therefore couldn't block the transgressor, would Wikipedia survive? Probably. So, patience costs little. Use it. That's what I plan to do.

Firstly some specifics for the above:-

a) Would you block a user who was dissenting of wikipedia or it's processes.

Only if such dissent was disruptive in the sense of being posted to a location that disrupted the normal operation of Wikipedia (e.g. article space). In particular, I personally think that dissent should NOT take place on WP:AN or WP:BN.

b)Would you block a user for incivility?

Only for repeated, gross incivility. I have seen examples of admins blocking for single instances of incivility that I would tend to slough off as passionate advocacy. I would opt for warning the editor and blocking only after repeated warnings have been ignored.

c)Would you block a sock puppet as soon as it is discovered the user has another account?

Yeah, but without Checkuser access, how would you know for sure? I'd want pretty solid proof that the user was a sock puppet.